PREDICTORS OF PRISON ADJUSTMENT AMONGST MALE INCARCERATED OFFENDERS IN A PRIVATE MAXIMUM-SECURITY CORRECTIONAL CENTRE
Codi Rogers
Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL SCIENCE WITH SPECIALISATION IN PSYCHOLOGY PSMD 8900
in the Faculty of the Humanities at the University of the Free State
Bloemfontein
June 2019
Supervisor: Dr J. Jordaan
STUDENT DECLARATION
I, Codi Rogers, hereby assert that the dissertation I submit for the degree Master of Social Science with specialisation in Psychology at the University of the Free State is my personal, autonomous work and that this dissertation has not been submitted previously at/in another university or faculty. Furthermore, I cede copyright of this dissertation in favour of the University of the Free State.
_______________________ Codi Rogers
BA Communication Science (Corporate and Marketing Communications)* BA
Hons Communication Science (Corporate and Marketing Communications)*
DECLARATION BY LANGUAGE AND APA EDITOR
* Cum Laude
6 Carl van Heerden Street Tel: 084 244 8961
Universitas Ridge, Bloemfontein annekedenobili@gmail.com
May 2019
DECLARATION
I, Anneke Denobili, hereby declare that I did the language and APA editing of the thesis of Codi Rogers (student number 2012037202) titled, Predictors of Prison Adjustment amongst Male Incarcerated Offenders in a Private Maximum-Security Correctional Centre, for submission purposes in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master of Social Science with specialisation in Psychology in the Faculty of the Humanities at the University of the Free State. All the suggested changes, including the implementation thereof, was left to the discretion of the student.
Sincerely
Anneke Denobili
SATI Registration #: 1003466
The editor will not be held accountable for any later additions or changes to the document that were not edited by the editor, nor if the client rejects/ignores any of the changes, suggestions or queries, which he/she is free to do. The editor can also not be held responsible for errors in the content of the document or whether or not the client passes or fails. It is the client’s responsibility to review the edited document before submitting it for evaluation.
PERMISSION TO SUBMIT DISSERTATION
Reference: Dr. J. Jordaan
Psychology Building, Room 204 University of the Free State BLOEMFONTEIN 9301 Telephone: 051 – 401 2890 E-mail: jordaanj1@ufs.ac.za 12 June 2019 PERMISSION TO SUBMIT Student: Ms. Codi Rogers
Student number: 2012037202
Degree: Master of Social Science with specialisation in Psychology Department: Psychology
Title: Predictors of prison adjustment amongst male incarcerated offenders in a private maximum-security correctional centre
I hereby provide permission that this dissertation be submitted for examination – in fulfilment of the requirements for a Master’s in Psychology, in the Department of Psychology, Faculty of the Humanities, at the University of the Free State.
I approve the submission for assessment and that the submitted work has not previously, either in part or in its entirety, been submitted to the examiners or moderators.
Kind regards.
Dr. J. Jordaan Supervisor
Department of Psychology / Departement Sielkunde
205 Nelson Mandela Drive/Rylaan, Park West/Parkwes, Bloemfontein 9301, South Africa/Suid-Afrika PO Box/Posbus 339, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa/Suid-Afrika, T: +27(0)51 401 2187, www.ufs.ac.za
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation is a culmination of the consideration and continuous guidance, support and encouragement from specific organisations and several significant individuals. As a result, I would like to acknowledge the following departments and people for their provision during this research project:
The Department of Correctional Services for their efficiency and for permitting me to conduct this research at Mangaung Correctional Centre;
Mangaung Correctional Centre and its impeccable staff for their exceptional assistance, direction, and support during this research process;
The 418 participants who were interested in and agreed to participate in this study;
My highly-invested supervisor, Dr Jacques Jordaan for his continued guidance, provision, advice, support, encouragement, and above-and-beyond willingness to assist during this entire research process. Thank you for making this study manageable;
Prof. Karel Esterhuyse for his expert supervision on the methodology of this study, advice and envisioning the final product with Dr Jordaan and I;
Ms. Anneke Denobili for the language and APA editing of this dissertation;
My incredible parents, Peter and Sandra Rogers for their unwavering support, love and teaching me that anything is possible once you put your mind to it;
My brother Luke Rogers for his inspiration, love, and constant comic-relief and; Carl Ranger for being my team mate in life and for supporting me through all of life’s
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Student Declaration i
Declaration by Language and APA Editor ii
Permission to submit dissertation iii
Acknowledgments iv
Chapter One: Introduction and Orientation to the study
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Problem Statement 1
1.3 Background/ Motivation for the study 4
1.4 Research Goals 8
1.5 Research Questions 8
1.6 Research Methodology 9
1.6.1 Research Design 9
1.6.2 Research Participants and Sampling 9
1.6.3 Data Collection Procedure/ Measuring Instruments 12
1.6.4 Statistical Procedures 14
1.6.5 Ethical Considerations 15
1.7 Value of the study 17
1.8 Clarification of Terminology 18
1.8.1 Correctional Adjustment 18
1.8.2 Incarceration 18
1.8.3 Incarcerated Offender(s) 18
1.8.5 Maximum-security correctional centre 19
1.8.6 Private correctional centre 19
1.9 Outline of the Chapters in the Dissertation 20
Chapter Two: Adjustment to a correctional centre
2.1 Introduction 21
2.2. The incarceration experience 22
2.3 Adjustment to incarceration 24
2.4 The importance of adjustment to incarceration 27
2.5 Theories relating to correctional adjustment 29
2.5.1 Importation Theory 29
2.5.2 Deprivation Theory 30
2.6 Incarceration in South Africa 31
2.7 Positive and negative adjustment to incarceration 33
2.8 Public correctional centres versus Private correctional centres 36 2.9 The site of the study: Mangaung Correctional Centre (MCC) 40 2.10 Adjustment to private maximum security correctional centre in South Africa 41 2.11 Variables that can be used to predict adjustment to incarceration 43
2.11.1 Coping Strategies 43
2.11.1.1 Problem-Focused Coping 45
2.11.1.2 Emotion-Focused Coping 47
2.11.1.3 Avoidance Coping 48
2.11.2 Aggression 49
2.11.4 Age 52 2.11.5 Offender Type Classification/ Prior Incarceration Experience 54
2.11.6 Sentence Length 56
2.12 Other variables that can predict adjustment to incarceration 58
2.12.1 Gang Affiliation 58
2.12.2 History of drug and alcohol abuse 60
2.12.3 Ethnicity/ Race 61
2.12.4 Mental Illness 63
2.12.5 Type of offence 65
2.13 Adjustment to incarceration and mental health 68
2.14 Adjustment to incarceration and recidivism after release 70
2.15 Conclusion 72
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction 73
3.2 Aim of the study 73
3.3 Research design and approach 74
3.4 Research sample 75
3.5 Data collection procedures 76
3.6 Measuring instruments 77
3.6.1 Self-Compiled Demographic Questionnaire 78
3.6.2 The Prison Adjustment Questionnaire 78
3.6.3 The Coping Strategy Indicator 80
3.6.5 The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support 82
3.7 Statistical Procedures 83
3.8 Participants 84
3.9 Means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis and internal consistencies of the
various measuring instruments 90
3.10 Ethical Considerations 92
3.11 Conclusion 92
Chapter Four: Results
4.1 Introduction 94
4.2 Correlation 94
4.3 Hierarchical regression analysis 97
4.3.1 Hierarchical regression analysis with Internal Adjustment as criterion
variable 98
4.3.2 Hierarchical regression analysis with External Adjustment as criterion
Variable 102
4.3.3 Hierarchical regression analysis with Physical Adjustment as criterion
Variable 106
4.4 Stepwise regression analysis with Internal Adjustment as criterion variable 111 4.5 Stepwise regression analysis with External Adjustment as criterion variable 113 4.6 Stepwise regression analysis with Physical Adjustment as criterion variable 115
4.7 Summary 116
Chapter Five: Discussion, limitations, recommendations and conclusion
5.1 Introduction 119
5.2 Perspectives/ Discussion of the results 119
5.2.1 Discussion of the measuring instruments used in this study 119 5.2.2 Discussion of the corrections between variables in this study 121 5.2.3 Discussion of the predictors of adjustment in relation to the criterion
variables from the hierarchical regression analysis 125 5.2.4 Discussion of the results of the stepwise regression analysis 130
5.3 Limitations of the study 134
5.4 Recommendations for future research 136
5.5 Conclusion 139
References 141
Abstract 185
Abstrak 187
Appendix A: Questionnaires provided to participants 189
Appendix B: Participant information leaflet and informed consent form 204 Appendix C: Faculty of the Humanities Research Ethics Committee Approval 212
Letter
Appendix D: Department of Correctional Services Ethical Clearance Letter 214
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Questionnaires provided to participants
APPENDIX B: Participant information leaflets and consent forms
APPENDIX C: Faculty of the Humanities Research Ethics Committee Approval Letter
APPENDIX D: Department of Correctional Services Ethical Clearance Letter
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Frequency distribution of participants according to demographic variables
Table 2: Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients for the PAQ, MSPSS, AQ and CSI subscales
Table 3: Correlations between the PAQ scales and Age, Offender type, Sentence length, CSI scales, MSPSS scales and AQ scales (N=418)
Table 4: Contributions of Age, Offender type, Sentence length, the MSPSS scales, Aggression scales and CSI scales to R2 with Internal Adjustment as Criterion Variable
Table 5: Contributions of Age, Offender type, Sentence length, the MSPSS scales, Aggression scales and CSI scales to R2 with External Adjustment as Criterion Variable
Table 6: Contributions of Age, Offender type, Sentence length, the MSPSS scales, Aggression scales and CSI scales to R2 with Physical Adjustment as Criterion Variable
Table 7: Stepwise regression analysis with Internal Adjustment as criterion variable
Table 8: Stepwise regression analysis with External Adjustment as criterion variable
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION AND ORIENTATION TO THE STUDY
1.1 Introduction
This dissertation commences with a comprehensive overview and orientation to the study. Chapter One focuses specifically on the background from which the research was conceptualised and conducted and initiates a thorough overview which highlights the problem statement of the research. Following this, the rationale and motivation for the research is reconnoitred. The research goals and objectives of the study are then presented, including the research questions. Thereafter the research methodology is briefly introduced and outlined. This is comprised of the research design, research participants and sampling, data collection procedures/measuring instruments, the statistical procedures of the study as well as the ethical considerations of the research. Furthermore, the value of the study is discussed and the key terms that are crucial to the research, clarified. Chapter One concludes with an overview of all the chapters in this dissertation.
1.2 Problem Statement
Currently, there are approximately 5952 offenders incarcerated in two privately-owned, maximum-security correctional centres in South Africa (G4S Care & Justice, 2019; Geo Group, 2019). However, as at 31 March 2018, 164 129offenders were incarcerated in 235
operationally-active correctional centres countrywide (Department of Correctional Services [DCS], 2018). This figure includes offenders detained in both public and private correctional centres. With such a high rate of individuals currently incarcerated as well as a predicted annual
increase of incarcerated offenders in the coming years (DCS, 2016, 2018), it is vital to investigate the factors that predict correctional adjustment amongst incarcerated offenders in order to be able to support these individuals, regardless of the contraventions that initially placed them there. Offenders incarcerated in private, maximum-security correctional centres face unique, strict and harsh circumstances that differs from incarcerated offenders in public correctional centres (Jordaan, 2014; Loots, 2010; Matshaba, 2007; Sekhonyane, 2003). It is imperative to examine and understand incarcerated individuals’ adjustment to the correctional environment (Adams, 1992; Goncalves, 2014; Hsieh, Hamilton, & Zogba, 2016; Nagin, Cullen, & Jonson, 2009). Researching and understanding offender adjustment to maximum-security incarceration will aid in the development of future programmes that will assist offenders with a healthy adjustment to the correctional environment. This will evidently support the expectant rehabilitation and ultimately the re-entry of offenders back into society.
While numerous studies highlight how offenders adjust to incarceration, relatively few studies examine the variables that can be used to predict correctional adjustment amongst male
incarcerated offenders (Goncalves, 2014), particularly in South African correctional centres (Hesselink & Grobler, 2015; Hesselink & Booyens, 2014). As a result, variables predicting correctional adjustment are significant to research from both an administrative and management perspective, including the treatment of offenders while they are incarcerated and for subsequent adaption to being back in the community (Goncalves, 2014). Furthermore, a search on EBSCO Host indicated that there has not been any previous research conducted on how male incarcerated offenders adjust to private, maximum-security correctional centres in the South African context. This research therefore specifically focuses on male offenders incarcerated in a private,
In the context of this research, adjustment to incarceration has been conceptualised as a process through which offenders are expected to successfully adjust to the unique challenges, stresses, frustrations, and deprivations of correctional life (Picken, 2012; Weiten, Dunn, & Hammer, 2018). According to Wright (1991), maladjustment to incarceration occurs when an offender’s ability for adaption is inadequate in meeting the internal and/or environmental
demands of incarceration. Most offenders adjust relatively well to correctional life but many do not cope with the challenges of incarceration (Casey, Day, & Reynolds, 2016; Crank, 2010; DeVeaux, 2013; Dye, 2010; Tomar, 2013; Wright, 1985, 1991). Adjustment to the correctional environment can be extremely difficult for the incarcerated offender, as thousands of
dysfunctional offenders are forced to intimately cohabitate in degrading surroundings that aggravate pressures, anxieties, fears, and preconceptions (De Viggiani, 2007). Maximum-security correctional centres further exacerbate these tensions as thousands of offenders with long-term, and most often violent convictions, are forced to cohabitate in an austere, routine, harsh, and almost clinical-type environment (Du Preez & Luyt, 2006; Jordaan, 2014; Matshaba, 2007; G4S presentation, 2007). Furthermore, research has found that incarcerated offenders are often exposed to severe forms of bullying, sexual victimisation or forced sex, gang activity, offender-on-offender violence, offender-on correctional staff attacks, exploitation, suicide, and even murder (Buntman, 2005; De Viggiani, 2007; Gear, 2007a, 2007b, 2008; Gear & Ngubeni, 2002; Griffin & Hepburn, 2006; Hesselink-Louw, 2004; Lahm, 2008, 2009; Morash, Jeong, & Zang, 2010; Perez, Gover, Tennyson, & Santos, 2009; Proctor & Pease, 2000). These perverted features of the correctional environnment can have an effect on the mental health of incarcerated offenders (Asberg & Renk, 2012; DeVeaux, 2013; Picken, 2012; Tomar, 2013) and contribute to the challenges of adjusting to life in a correctional centre (Jordaan, 2014).
Therefore, a need arose to explore the predictors of adjustment to a correctional environment amongst male incarcerated offenders. The results of the study could be significant to the DCS, in that they may be able to use the results to facilitate the understanding of adjustment within a South African private, maximum-security correctional centre. The results can also be used to encourage further research and assist with the improvement and implementation of correctional programmes that will support offenders with adjusting to the correctional environment.
Furthermore, the findings can be used to aid in the process of offender rehabilitation, their transition back into the community, and potentially reduce the likelihood of reoffending upon release.
1.3 Background/Motivation for the study
The unique contextual attributes of the correctional environment and the frustrations, deprivations, and challenges associated with it, impact on adjustment to incarceration (Crank, 2010; DeVeaux, 2013; Santos, 2003, 2006). Peacock and Theron (2007) argued that correctional centres construct a pathological environment that requires that the offender adapt to an
unaccustomed set of values, traditions, and social relationships. In a 2010 study, 66.6% of the offenders indicated that they find incarceration particularly challenging (Crank, 2010). Research has shown that offenders who experience the correctional environment as particularly
challenging are also more inclined to struggle with adjusting to the correctional environment (Dye, 2010; McNulty & Huey, 2005; Picken, 2012). These offenders could also possibly view incarceration as a deterrent. Wright (1983) emphasised that well-adjusted offenders do not typically experience psychological trauma or illness and are not taken advantage of by other offenders. Well-adjusted offenders typically have few, if any, disciplinary infractions (Dye, 2010; Picken, 2012) and are likely to accept their sentence length (Casey et al., 2016).
Furthermore, well-adjusted offenders also experience some sense of support from the correctional environment (McNulty & Huey, 2005), as well as friends and family members (Woo, Lu, & Stohr, 2016). In contrast, maladjusted offenders are more inclined to experience frequent violent outbursts, aggression, depression, anxiety, emotional withdrawal, and even suicide (Casey et al., 2016; DeVeaux, 2013; Dye, 2010; Tomar, 2013). Some offenders respond to incarceration with aggression, violence, and correctional misconduct by joining gangs,
swearing to an ‘inmate code’, and by banding together in an attempt to revolt against correctional
administration (De Viggiani, 2007; Dhami, Ayton, & Loewenstein, 2007; Gear, 2010; MacKenzie & Goodstein, 1986; Rocheleu, 2013). As will be presented in this research, the dysfunctionality of incarcerated offenders’ adjustments to the correctional environment, can be viewed as a typical or ‘normal’ reaction given the pathological correctional context (Gear, 2010;
Peacock & Theron, 2007). Given the stringent, harsh nature of the correctional environment, incarcerated offenders’ adaptions to a private maximum-security correctional centre may in fact
be as expected.
Research has suggested that maladjusted offenders often have a high rate of disciplinary violations whilst incarcerated (Dye, 2010; Logan, 2015), and this has been identified as a predictor of reoffending upon release (Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996). Partaking in correctional programmes as well as the maintenance of connections to family members while incarcerated, however, are correlated with reduced rates of recidivism (Bales & Mears, 2008; Duwe & Clarke, 2011). It is however important to note that there are no official recidivism figures for South Africa (National Institute of Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders [NICRO], 2014). Nonetheless, recidivism in South Africa will likely remain high due to the ineffective nature of the rehabilitation programmes in South African correctional centres (Dissel,
2008; Freeman, 2003). Thus, how individual offenders respond to incarceration is an important precursor for shaping their behaviour while imprisoned, including their response to subsequent rehabilitation and recidivism (Hochstetler & DeLisi, 2005; Hsieh et al., 2016; Nagin et al., 2009). Research has suggested that negative experiences while incarcerated including committing
further crimes whilst incarcerated (Nagin et al., 2009; Trulson, DeLisi, & Marquart, 2011; Trulson, DeLisi, Caudill, Belshaw, & Marquart, 2010) and ineffective rehabilitation programmes (Grady, Edwards, & Pettus-Davis, 2015) are significant predictors of reoffending upon release (Hsieh et al., 2016).
Literature suggests that several variables exist which can be used to predict correctional adjustment. Despite these many varied predictors, the pertinent predictors, identified from literature, include offender coping strategies, aggression levels, perceived social support as well as several demographic factors including the offenders’ age, offender type classification (first time offender or repeat offender) and sentence length (Chubaty, 2001; Crank, 2010; Dye, 2010; Picken, 2012; Wright, 1985). Coping strategies are particularly vital when adjusting to an unfamiliar, highly-restrictive environment (Carr, 2013). The coping strategies generally identified amongst offenders include avoidance, momentary relief of problems, and aggression (Carr, 2013; Chubaty, 2001; Gullone, Jones, & Cummins, 2000). These maladaptive coping mechanisms could impact upon adjustment to incarceration by putting offenders at a higher risk for mental illness (Chubaty, 2001; Newhard, 2014; Picken, 2012). Not only is aggression a coping mechanism in correctional centres, but research suggests that aggression is also closely linked to correctional maladjustment (Dye, 2010). More aggressive offenders are more likely to be cited for disciplinary violations and also tend to spend more time in solitary confinement (McShane & Williams, 1989; Picken, 2012), which is an indication of correctional
maladjustment (Dye, 2010). A study conducted amongst male incarcerated offenders found that those with higher levels of aggression also reported being more lonely and suicidal than their less aggressive counterparts (Carrizales, 2013). Crank (2010), however, argued that more aggressive and violent offenders may adjust better to correctional centres as they dominate other offenders and may be targeted less frequently than non-violent offenders. Various studies have found that active or expressive support offered to incarcerated offenders by the correctional centre or by significant others lessen criminal involvement and enhances social ties (Cochran & Mears, 2013; Jiang & Winfree, 2006; Siennick, Mears, & Bales, 2013; Woo et al., 2016).
Demographic factors such as offender age, offender type classification, and sentence length can also be used to predict correctional adjustment. Research indicates that older offenders typically have more incarceration experience and have thus developed the necessary strategies to adapt to correctional life (Akerstrom, 1985; Crank, 2010; MacKenzie & Goodstein, 1985;
Sapsford, 1978). However, as offender’s age, they are in turn at an increased risk of being victimised, which could also impact upon their adjustment to the correctional environment (Cervello, 2015; Kerbs & Jolley, 2007; Wright, 1983). Irrespective of age, offenders with prior incarceration experience, or who are repeat offenders and have been incarcerated before, may also adjust better to correctional life (Akerstrom, 1985; Crank 2010; Shover, 1985). This is due to offenders with prior incarceration experience being less fearful of incarceration (May, Wood, Mooney, & Minor, 2005). Pertaining to the type of offence, research found that offenders sentenced for violent offences are more inclined to have higher correctional infraction rates than non-violent incarcerated offenders (Flanagan, 1983; Logan, 2015). A high rate of infractions whilst incarcerated can be associated with correctional maladjustment (Crank, 2010; Dye, 2010; McShane & Williams, 1989; Picken, 2012; Woo et al., 2016). According to Wolfgang (1961),
offenders incarcerated for murder often have an attitude which favours violation of the law. As a result, these offenders are less adherent to the correctional environment than offenders sentenced for other offences (Warren, 2003; Wolfgang, 1961). In addition, sexual offenders have also been found to have a harder time adjusting to correctional centres due to their increased likelihood of victimisation (Connor & Tewksbury, 2013; Edgar & O’Donnell, 1998).
In general, offenders are expected to adjust to the correctional environment in an effective and healthy manner (Crank, 2010; Picken, 2012). However, incarcerated offenders may experience severe stress due to prevailing personal and/or correctional conditions, which can lead to
depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, social withdrawal, self-mutilation, and hostility (Asberg & Renk, 2012; DeVeaux 2013; Peacock, 2008; Picken, 2012; Santos, 2003, 2006; Tomar, 2013).
1.4 Research Goals
The primary goal of this research was to determine which variables are the best predictors of correctional adjustment amongst male incarcerated offenders in a private maximum-security correctional centre in South Africa. Furthermore, the subsequent purpose of the research was to determine how male offenders with different coping strategies, aggression levels, perceived social support, ages, offender type classifications, and sentence lengths adjust to incarceration in a private maximum-security correctional centre.
1.5 Research Questions
For the purpose of this research, the following research questions were investigated:
Can the combination of coping strategies, aggression levels, perceived social support, age, offender type classification (first time offender or repeat offender), and sentence
length explain a significant percentage of variance in the adjustment of male incarcerated offenders in a private maximum-security correctional centre? Do any of the individual predictors significantly contribute to the variance of
correctional adjustment in male incarcerated offenders in a private maximum-security correctional centre?
1.6 Research Methodology
1.6.1 Research Design
The research design utilised in this study entailed a quantitative approach and a non-experimental type of research. The main goal was to determine the relationships between variables and therefore a correlational design (Stangor, 2015) was used.
1.6.2 Research Participants and Sampling
In order to answer the primary research questions, a non-probability sampling technique, more specifically, convenience sampling (Maree, 2014) was used and data was collected voluntarily from a sample of 418 male incarcerated offenders (N=418) held in a private
maximum-security correctional centre. The correctional centre chosen to obtain data from is the Mangaung Correctional Centre (MCC) located in Mangaung, on the outskirts of Bloemfontein, in the Free State. Prior to data collection, the researcher initially planned and took the necessary steps to make use of a probability sampling technique known as stratified random sampling (Maree, 2014). Stratified random sampling is more scientific in nature as it guarantees that different subcategories or strata of the population are satisfactorily represented in the sample
(Maree, 2014; Stangor, 2015). In order to strengthen the significance of the research, the
participants that were to expectantly be included in the sample differed in terms of age, ethnicity, and type of offence, as well as sentence length, and gang affiliation, for example, and were therefore adequately represented in the overall sample group. The rationale behind the use of stratified random sampling was based on the fact that a sampling framework/database at MCC, which extensively records offender details upon intake, would be used to identify several strata. Originally, with the assistance of a third party correctional official, several strata were identified and an Excel spreadsheet was compiled of all the offenders who met the relevant research criteria (i.e. able to read, write, and understand English). All of these were divided into separate strata. The researcher only received an Excel spreadsheet that listed the offenders’ correctional numbers. No identifying details and names of participants were provided to the researcher. The researcher used the spreadsheet to randomly select every 4th offender from the list.
Approximately 500 potential participants had been randomly selected to take part in the research. However, before starting with the data collection, the researcher met with the Head of Security at MCC who expressed his extreme concerns regarding security risks and the logistical and
operational challenges associated with moving specifically selected offenders to the data
collection venue each day. It became apparent that given the correctional centre’s strict security procedures and keeping the security of the participants, correctional staff and the researcher in mind, a more suitable, less operationally-taxing sampling method was needed. Thus, the researcher, in consultation with various correctional officials, decided to make use of
convenience sampling. In essence, the intention was to utilise a more representative sampling technique. However, this was not possible due to the safety, operational, and administrative challenges associated with such a technique in this particular correctional environment.
By utilising convenience sampling,participants conveniently situated within the Correctional Centre, such as those attending the school, skills developments workshops or social work and psychological services were requested to partake in the research based on their appropriate accessibility and proximity to the researcher. Also identified as accidental sampling,
convenience sampling is a type of non-probability or non-random sampling technique where members of the target population that meet specific practical criteria, such as geographical proximity, convenient availability, or the interest to take part are included for the purpose of the study (Etikan, Musa & Alkassim, 2016; Stangor, 2015). Participants of all ages, ethnic groups, types of offences, sentence lengths, and gang affiliation amongst others were included to form part of the sample. Some of the offenders had an education level below Grade six but since they were attending the school programme five days a week and could adequately read, write and understand English, they were able to answer the questionnaires independently and thus they were also included in the sample. Data collection took place with the researcher training groups of correctional officials (e.g. school teachers, skills development officers, social workers and psychologists) employed at the correctional centre on the research. These third party
correctional officials assisted with administering the questionnaires to participants so as to collect the required data.
The process of completing the questionnaires took place as follows: The researcher, as instructed by the correctional centre, trained several staff members on the research process. The researcher explained the research in its entirety to several small groups of incarcerated offenders who were already in classrooms at school, attending skill development workshops or social work/ psychological group sessions. Over a period of just over one month from 30 July 2018 – 1 September 2018, the staff members, who had previously been trained on the research, again
explained the research to the participants, requested that they sign the informed consent sheet if they wanted take part in the study and then administered the questionnaires to the offenders on the researcher’s behalf. This ultimately lead to a sample size of N=418. Upon completion of the questionnaires, the researcher collected the forms from the correctional centre and processed the data on EvaSys, an automated survey software system (EvaSys, 2019).
1.6.3 Data Collection Procedure/Measuring Instruments
For the purpose of data collection, the participants completed five distinct questionnaires. The questionnaire booklet took between one to two and a half hours to complete depending on the literacy level of the offender. The questionnaires were generated on EvaSys and the following measuring instruments used in order to gather the necessary data (see Appendix A):
A self-compiled demographic questionnaire which included recurring items found in literature; all relating to offender demographics such as age, offender type classification, and sentence length, for example.
The Prison Adjustment Questionnaire (PAQ; Wright, 1983, 1985) which was utilised to measure the self-perceptions of adjustment to incarceration according to the offenders. The PAQ consists of 30 items focusing on nine distinct problems that offenders may experience while incarcerated. This includes feeling uncomfortable around others; the fear, illness, anger, and injury they experience while incarcerated; sleeping problems; arguments and physical fights they are involved in as well as being taken advantage of by other offenders (Wright, 1983). The internal consistency of the PAQ ranges from
adequate to good. The PAQ has three subscales that are categorised under the following dimensions, namely Internal, External and Physical (Wright, 1983). The alpha coefficient for the internal dimension equals 0.67, the external dimension equals 0.74, while the
physical dimension equals 0.50 in a sample of offenders (Wright, 1985). A high score on the PAQ suggests that offenders struggle with adjusting to incarceration. Therefore, lower scores on the PAQ indicate less adjustment issues and better adaption to the correctional environment (Wright, 1983, 1985).
The Coping Strategy Indicator (CSI; Amirkhan, 1990) was utilised to gauge the coping strategies of offenders in adverse circumstances. The CSI has 33 items and three subscales assessing 11 items each. The three subscales are (a) problem solving; (b) seeking social support, and (c) avoidance. The CSI illustrates superior internal
consistency, when compared to other coping questionnaires, with alphas ranging from 0.84 to 0.93 and displaying stable scores with test-retest correlations averaging 0.82 across four to eight week periods amongst large and diverse samples (Amirkhan, 1994).
Furthermore, higher scores on each subscale suggest a higher tendency to utilise the associated coping strategy (Amirkhan, 1994). In a South African study on a sample of offenders the internal consistency of each factor on this scale ranged between 0.62 – 0.90 (Jordaan, 2014; Jordaan, Beukes, & Esterhuyse, 2018).
The Aggression Questionnaire (AQ; Buss & Perry, 1992) was used in order to measure the aggression levels of the offenders. The AQ measures 29 items of aggression, divided into four subscales namely, (a) physical aggression; (b) verbal aggression; (c) anger, and (d) hostility. All four subscales show internal consistency and stability over time. The test-retest reliability of the AQ was found to be 0.78 in a sample of university students (Samani, 2013). In a study conducted amongst a sample of South African offenders, Jordaan (2014) and Jordaan et al. (2018) found that the internal consistency of each factor on this scale ranged between 0.62 and 0.87. Higher scores indicate that the individual
shows higher levels of that particular type of aggression, while lower scores suggest a lower incidence of the associated aggression. This questionnaire’s alpha coefficient is 0.89 (Buss & Perry, 1992).
The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988) was used to measure the perceived social support of the offenders. The MSPSS measures an individual’s perceived social support on three aspects, namely
friends, family, and a significant other. The MSPSS has good internal and test-retest reliability and moderate construct validity. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the measure ranged between 0.81 and 0.90 for the family subscale, between 0.90 and 0.94 for the friends subscale and between 0.83 and 0.98 for the significant other subscale in a sample group of pregnant women, adolescents and paediatric residents (Zimet, Powell, Farley, Werkman, & Berkoff, 1990). In a population of offenders the MSPSS was found to have good internal reliability with Cronbach's alpha reported to be 0.92 for the overall scale, 0.93 for family, 0.90 for friends, and 0.91 for the significant others subscale (Brown & Day, 2008). A higher score on the MSPSS indicates a higher degree of perceived social support (Zimet et al., 1988).
1.6.4 Statistical Procedures
All data collected from the participants was analysed with the help of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences; SPSS version 25 (IBM Corporation, 2017). A Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to gauge the reliability of the various scales. Descriptive statistics were also completed. In order to predict which variable(s) explain the highest percentage of variance in adjustment, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted. Petrocelli (2003) stated that multiple regression is used as a strategy to predict a criterion variable with a set of predictor
variables. In this study the criterion variable is adjustment and the predictor variables include coping strategies, aggression levels, perceived social support, age, offender type classification and sentence length. Hierarchical regression is a method for evaluating the effect of a predictor variable after controlling for other variables. This is accomplished by calculating the adjustment in the R2 at each step of the analysis, thus determining the increase in variance after each variable is entered into the regression equation (Lewis, 2007; Pedhazur, 1997). Therefore, to strengthen the results of the research and to assist in the prediction of adjustment to incarceration in a private, maximum-security correction centre, a stepwise multiple regression was conducted. This entails that a particular order is not selected beforehand but the variables first entered into the analysis are those that produce the biggest increase in the multiple R (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Stangor, 2015). Therefore, theory is not considered and the statistical package, which is SPSS in this study, ultimately determines the variables that best predict the criterion variables according to the extent to which they increase the multiple R (Stangor, 2015). Thus, a stepwise multiple regression is a technique of regressing multiple variables while
concurrently eliminating the insignificant ones (SPSS Stepwise Linear Regression, 2019).
1.6.5 Ethical Considerations
Incarceration places offenders under certain unique restrictions that may affect their capacity to make truly voluntary and self-imposed decisions regarding whether or not to participate in research (University of Virginia: Human Research Protection Programme, 2017). As a result, offenders are a vulnerable population of research participants who have often been taken advantage of by researchers seeking expedient solutions to complicated research questions (Hornblum, 1997; Mitford, 1974). However, this study’s sole purpose was to understand
correctional adjustment within the context of a private maximum-security correctional centre in South Africa. This study has been conducted in accordance with the Code of Conduct of the South African Professional Board of Psychology. Approval to conduct this research was first obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Humanities at the University of the Free State. As a result, the researcher received an ethics number: UFS-HSD2017/0939 (Appendix C), which granted permission for the research to be conducted. Further approval to conduct this research was obtained from the Department of Correctional Services on 25 June 2018 (see Appendix D). A comprehensive information leaflet detailing the purpose of the research, the potential risks, inconveniences and benefits of participation in the study as well as information regarding feedback was presented to the potential participants in order to allow them to make an informed decision regarding their participation in this study (see Appendix B). All potential participants were thoroughly informed of the possible risks of their participation, both verbally and in writing by the researcher, which included not only
emotional/social/psychological distress and/or personal/cultural embarrassment but also the threat of reputational harm due to the strict offender code within correctional centres. As a result, a psychologist and social worker employed by the correctional centre was arranged for participants for debriefing and/or counselling in such cases. Participants were informed ahead of time of the availability of this service. Written informed consent was further obtained from all participants who were willing to take part in this study prior to the commencement of data collection. Participation in this research was completely voluntary and participants could withdraw from the study at any given time without providing a reason. Any and all information collected from participants was kept confidential and complete anonymity was rigorously adhered to as far as reasonably possible throughout the research process. As a result of the
nature of the research, participants will not be connected to the answers they provided as no participant was ever asked to identify themselves through the course of the research.
Furthermore, data has been stored in a private place and on a password protected computer and was handled exclusively by the researcher.
1.7 Value of the Study
The proposed study is valuable in the South African context for several reasons. Firstly, the results of this research will expectantly contribute to the larger collection of South African research which aims to understand correctional populations. In 2019, the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) explicitly noted in their Research Agenda of the Department of Correctional Services (2019-2023) the absolute importance of correctional research in providing vital information regarding incarcerated offender populations, their trends as well as planning and identifying risk factors for the main purpose of improving correctional centres. Correctional research is also extremely valuable to society (Department of Correctional Services: Research Agenda of the Department of Correctional Services, 2019). More specifically, and in line with DCS’ advocacy on correctional research, this study will optimistically contribute to the
incredibly limited body of correctional research on offenders incarcerated in private, maximum security correctional centres in South Africa and beyond. Secondly, this study will help to indicate which variables are the best predictors of correctional adjustment amongst male
incarcerated offenders in a private maximum-security correctional centre and can thus be used to inform future research. It could also aid in identifying whether extra resources are needed to assist offenders with adjustment to incarceration. Furthermore, this study can assist with the validation of the measuring instruments used in this study and support the use of these
assist with the future development and implementation of rehabilitation programmes to assist with the treatment and eventually the potential reintegration of offenders back into the
community post-release.
1.8 Clarification of Terminology
1.8.1 Correctional Adjustment
Various definitions exist for the term correctional adjustment (Van Tongeren & Klebe, 2010). A general definition of adjustment is it being “the psychological processes through which people cope with the demands and challenges of everyday life (Weiten, Dunn, & Hammer, 2018, p. 9). It is the aptitude of the individual to adapt to the space within which the individual finds himself. This can be rather stressful within the restricted and contained correctional environment.
Therefore, correctional adjustment points to the degree to which an incarcerated offender is capable of coping with the unique demands, challenges, frustrations and deprivations of the correctional environment (Picken, 2012; Sykes; 1958; Weiten et al., 2018).
1.8.2 Incarceration
Incarceration, which is synonymous with imprisonment (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2019), refers to the state of being confined in a correctional centre.
1.8.3 Incarcerated Offender(s)
Incarcerated offender(s) refers to the individual or groups of people who are presently housed in and confined to a correctional centre (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2019).
1.8.4 Correctional Centre
Correctional Centre is the preferred term for ‘prison’ in South Africa as per the White Paper
on Corrections (2005). A correctional centre is an establishment where incarcerated offenders are held in order to serve their sentences for committing societal transgressions. Correctional centres work with an incarcerated offender by focusing on three distinct areas namely, (a) punishment, (b) deterrence and (c) rehabilitation (Aqbakwuru & Ibe-Godfrey, 2017; Tomar, 2013).
1.8.5 Maximum-security correctional centre
A correctional centre that houses offenders that the justice system has classified as maximum-security offenders and have thus been deemed very dangerous to society, and who in turn serve long correctional sentences (Silverman, 2001).
1.8.6 Private correctional centre
Such a correctional centre refers to an establishment where offenders are detained by an outsourced party that has been contracted by the government to do so. Although private
correctional centres are not owned or run by the government, the centre still needs to comply with the legislation of the Department of Correctional Services (Matshaba, 2007).
1.9 Outline of Chapters of the Dissertation
This dissertation is comprised of five chapters, five appendices and nine tables. Chapter One provides the reader with an introduction and orientation to the study and includes sections pertaining to the problem statement, rationale/background of the study, the research questions as well as the ethical considerations of the research and the value of the study. Chapter Two provides the researcher with an extensive literature review on the existing body of research with regards to correctional adjustment and its related concepts. Chapter Three details the
methodological procedures that were followed and implemented in order to obtain the results of the research. Included in this chapter is the research design, the research objectives, the sample, participants, data gathering procedures, measuring instruments as well as the statistical analyses. Chapter Four includes all the research findings of the study, while Chapter Five encompasses a discussion on the results of the study in relation to the literature. Chapter Five also concludes the study, addresses the limitations of the research, and highlights the recommendations for future research.
CHAPTER TWO
ADJUSTMENT TO A CORRECTIONAL CENTRE
2.1 Introduction
Chapter Two entails an all-encompassing discussion of the literature and existing body of research related to the topic being explored. The chapter commences with an exploration and discussion of the incarceration experience in order to provide the background on which the research is based. The subject of adjustment to incarceration will be thoroughly examined and the importance of adjustment to incarceration will be explored. Furthermore, the theories relating to correctional adjustment will be reconnoitred briefly, which will be followed by an investigation into the conditions of incarceration in South Africa to further highlight the need for this research. Positive and negative correctional adjustment will also be conceptualised and a discussion of the differences between public correctional centres and private correctional centres included. Following this, an extensive review of the six variables that were used to predict correctional adjustment to incarceration will be provided. These variables include offender coping strategies, aggression levels, perceived social support and also demographic factors such as offender age, offender type classification and sentence length. Several other factors that may further predict adjustment to incarceration will also be highlighted and discussed. These factors include gang affiliation, a history of substance abuse, ethnicity, mental illness as well as type of offence. This chapter will also thoroughly examine adjustment to incarceration and its impact on the mental well-being of incarcerated offenders in
accordance with literature. Lastly, adjustment to incarceration and recidivism after release will be discussed before concluding with the literature review section.
2.2 The incarceration experience
Incarceration and its unique contextual attributes has become an increasingly pressing societal issue in the 21st century (Delaney, 2019; Lopez, 2019; Tyson, 2017). Each year, millions of individuals pass through the entranceways of correctional centres worldwide to serve their respective sentences for the crimes they have committed (Wagner & Rabuy, 2016; Wagner & Sawyer, 2018). These individuals are by law obligated to give up their right to freedom in exchange for a term in a correctional centre as punishment for some societal transgression. Once incarcerated, they are no longer considered free citizens. These
individuals are held within a strict, rigid and structured non-therapeutic environment, which adversely impacts on their mental health (Jordaan, 2014). This strict environment makes the incarceration experience traumatic for many people (DeVeaux, 2013; Picken, 2012; Santos, 2003; Wright, 1983), as they are confronted with the realisation of the loss of freedom, punitive conditions of confinement, adapting to an often new and unfamiliar environment, separation from loved ones as well as experiencing countless fears relating to personal safety and victimisation (Blevins, Listwan, Cullen, & Johnson, 2010; Carr, 2013; Casey et al., 2016; Crank, 2010; Delaney, 2019; De Viggiani, 2007;, DeVeaux, 2013). These unique stressors can in some instances lead to a deterioration in the mental health of incarcerated offenders (Asberg & Renk, 2012; DeVeaux, 2013; Newhard, 2014; Picken, 2012), particularly if an individual has difficulty adjusting to the demands and frustrations of the correctional environment.
Gresham Sykes (1958) identified five fundamental social-psychological deprivations experienced by most incarcerated offenders, which he appropriately termed the Pains of Imprisonment. These deprivations, which research suggests are still relevant today (Irwin, 2006; Johnson, 2002; Johnson & McGunigall-Smith, 2008; Rocheleau, 2013), includes being deprived of freedom, goods and services, heterosexual relationships, independence and safety. Offenders who experience the identified pains of imprisonment as severe are more inclined to
perceive the incarceration experience as particularly difficult and act out with correctional misconduct (Rocheleau, 2013).
Research relating to the incarceration experience has had a long and tumultuous history, often producing complex, juxtaposing findings over several decades (Picken, 2012).
As such, studies investigating the impact of incarceration is not definitive, but the findings of several research endeavours point to the potential psychological harm that long-term imprisonment can have on incarcerated offenders (Delaney, 2019). Early research indicated that imprisonment is a cruel and inhumane form of punishment (Bukstel & Kilman, 1980; Wolfgang, 1961; Wright, 1983) with offenders often displaying maladaptive responses, which include emotional
disorders, correctional misconduct and suicide attempts (Adams, 1992; Clements, 1979; Cooper, 1974). In his revolutionary book, The Prison Community, Donald Clemmer (1940, 1958) argued that the correctional environment is neither normal nor natural and constitutes a degrading human experience (Kling & Clemmer, 1941). Furthermore, some literature
emphasised that the lack of privacy, scrutiny by correctional officials and the often constant experience and witnessing of violence in the correctional environment promotes a greater sense of helplessness and dependency amongst incarcerated offenders (Pollock, 2006; Schill & Marcus, 1998).
However, incarceration can in some circumstances, when the needs of offenders are of a high priority, even be constructive and promote well-being (Helliwell, 2011; Kvalvaag, 2016). Bonta and Gendreau’s (1990) research could not support the claim that incarceration has a negative impact on offenders. Kvalvaag (2016) reported that research conducted at Bergen University in Norway found that correctional sentences can in fact be effective. The findings indicated that five years after being convicted, previous offenders had a 27% decreased likelihood of committing new crimes; thus indicating that incarceration could be a rather effective deterrent. However, this is context-specific and may not be applicable in the South
African setting. Nevertheless, research has concluded that the most detrimental aspect of the incarceration experience relates to individual factors (Bonta & Gendreau, 1990) such as the loss of freedom and ties to the outside world and not necessarily to the unique conditions of incarceration (Mackenzie & Mitchell, 2005; Yang, Kadouri, Revah-Levy, Mulvey, & Falissard, 2009). Furthermore, a recent policy statement proposed that by identifying each offenders’ unique criminogenic needs, building a school district within the correctional environment, prioritising the mental health treatments of offenders and helping offenders maintain family connections while incarcerated, reform and productivity within the correctional environment can be achieved (United States Department of Justice, 2017). The DCS has also explicitly expressed their intentions to continue to prioritise educational programmes and the mental well-being of offenders to ensure that offenders receive appropriate opportunities for rehabilitation while imprisoned (DCS Annual Report, 2016, 2018). The DCS has also acknowledged that continued research with offender populations is needed in order to advise on how to move forward with strategy and evidence-based policies (Department of
Correctional Services: Research Agenda of the Department of Correctional Services, 2019). While extensive research exploring and discussing the incarceration experience exists, experts have often interrogated the validity of research related to the experiences of
incarcerated offenders, particularly due to incompetent research endeavours, which includes defective sampling techniques, weak research designs and other methodological problems (Bonta & Gendreau, 1990; DeVeaux, 2013). Therefore, offenders’ adjustment to the incarceration experience and the factors that predict correctional adjustment are vital undertakings for future research, particularly in the South African context.
2.3 Adjustment to incarceration
Adjustment to incarceration has become a current and comprehensive topic of discussion in correctional research. Thought-provoking research endeavours reviewing the difficulties
associated with adjusting to a unisexual, highly-restricted environment have contributed to our fascination on this topic (Goncalves, 2014;Wolfgang, 1961). Adjustment is a multidimensional concept that embodies various complex elements (Van Tongeren & Klebe, 2010).
Adjustment can be defined as the “psychological processes through which people manage or cope with the demands or challenges of everyday life” (Weiten et al., 2018, p. 9). Therefore,
adjustment to incarceration is a process through which offenders are anticipated to positively adapt to the distinctive challenges, demands, frustrations and deprivations of the correctional environment (Picken, 2012; Sykes; 1958; Weiten et al., 2018). Adjustment to incarceration includes “adaptation to the prison environment, conforming to the dictates of the environment, active participation in programmes within the prison and conscious preparation for a more meaningful life after incarceration” (Animasahun, 2010, p. 122). Van Tongeren and Klebe
(2010) defined adjustment to incarceration as the offenders’ ability to successfully transition to the unfamiliar environment, coupled with their orientation toward longstanding rehabilitation. Wright (1983) conceptualised correctional adjustment in terms of the significant emotional and psychological suffering that offenders may experience while incarcerated. Porporino and Zamble (1984) further argued that offender adjustment is conceptualised as a human procedure through which cognition, behaviours and the environments mutually work together to either enrich or aggravate already demanding circumstances.
The process of integration into and adjustment to the correctional environment was termed by Clemmer (1940, 1958) as Prisonisation, which is a form of correctional socialisation where offenders “take on in greater or less degree the folkways, mores, customs, and general culture of the penitentiary” (p. 299). However, the term Prisonisation was highly criticised for not
considering specific offender attributes such as race and gang affiliation (Jacobs, 1974). Goodstein and Wright (1989) also expressed concern regarding the way the concept has been measured.
Though most offenders, including long-term offenders, typically adapt relatively well to correctional life, several do not successfully manage the stressors and challenges associated with the unique environment (Adams, 1992; Crank, 2010; Delaney, 2019; DeVeaux, 2013; Picken, 2012; Lopez, 2019; Wright, 1985). Difficulty adjusting to the correctional
environment can be characterised as correctional maladjustment. Maladjustment to incarceration can be viewed in terms of frequent violent outbursts, aggression, depression, anxiety, emotional withdrawal and even suicide (Casey et al., 2016; DeVeaux, 2013; Dye, 2010). The adjustment model advocates that offenders can become respectable citizens and successfully reintegrate with society when they choose to take responsibility for their actions, avoid making excuses for their criminal behaviour, accept help and follow the rules and standards of society, and learn new behaviours and abilities that will assist with developing their full potential (Du Preez, 2003).
Several authors agree that incarceration is a physically, psychologically and emotionally challenging experience for anyone confined to a correctional centre (DeVeaux, 2013; Picken, 2012; Rocheleau, 2013). DeVeaux (2013) maintained that “the experience of being locked in a cage has a psychological effect upon everyone made to endure it, no one leaves unscarred” (p.
257). Research suggests that offenders often experience an initial transition shock upon entering the correctional environment (Smyth, Ivanoff, & Jang, 1994). This further reinforces the assertion that there is a particularly high risk period for committing suicide within the first 24 hours of incarceration (Towl, 2003). The infamous Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by the Psychology Department at Stanford University in 1970 supports the idea that
incarceration can be difficult to adjust to. In this mock-incarceration experiment, university students were randomly allocated the role of either guard or offender and placed in a
correctional-like environment. Several student offenders experienced acute psychosomatic trauma and breakdowns while others were released on the basis of extreme emotional
depression, crying, indignation and acute anxiety after only six days of mock-incarceration (Haney & Zimbardo, 1998).
However, different individual-offender characteristics will influence who adjusts well to the correctional environment and who experiences chronic maladjustment (Hampton, 2012;
Rocheleau, 2013). The coping strategies, aggression levels and perceived social support of offenders as well as offender age, offender type classification and sentence length are all examples of unique individual characteristics that can have an impact on how offenders adjust to incarceration.
2.4 The importance of adjustment to incarceration
Adams (1992) stated that offender adjustment to the correctional environment is important to individuals who believe that correctional centres should perform corrective or
rehabilitative functions and that incarcerated offenders should have the best chance of rehabilitation whilst incarcerated. The South African Department of Correctional Services has the responsibility to provide needs-based psychological services to incarcerated offenders by improving offenders’ mental health and emotional well-being, which ultimately promotes
their rehabilitation and eventual transition back into the public (Dissel, 2008; Herbig & Hesselink, 2012). If an incarcerated offender experiences continuous psychological and emotional anguish due to the incarceration experience, opportunities for rehabilitation facilitated by correctional programmes, psychologists, social workers and religious leaders may be prolonged and in some cases ineffective or futile (Adams,1992; Dissel, 2008). The issue of adjustment to incarceration is important for several reasons including administrative-managerial and correctional treatment purposes as well as for adaption back into society upon release, and is thus of particular interest for psychologists and correctional managers
(Goncalves, 2014). As a result, researchers and correctional officials who are interested in decreasing the risk of maladjustment to incarceration and reoffending upon release have sought ways to describe, assess, predict and expedite the process of adjustment to incarceration (Jiang & Fisher-Giorlando, 2002).
As highlighted in previous sections, incarceration is a stressful event which requires that the incarcerated individual adapt his behaviour to adjust to the new institutional procedures and norms (Crank, 2010; Peacock & Theron, 2007, Van Tongeren & Klebe, 2010). Incarceration generates a correctional society that necessitates that the incarcerated offender adjust to unfamiliar ethics, customs and new societal dynamics. In order to survive the incarceration climate of deprivation, incarcerated offenders often disengage and mentally detach themselves from their typical outside world in a bid to construct a life within the correctional environment (Peacock & Theron, 2007), which is considered extremely normal and adaptive given the pathological correctional context (Gear, 2010; Peacock & Theron, 2007; Wright, 1983). When an individual is unable to effectively adjust to the correctional environment, he may experience behavioural and psychological challenges which can include correctional misconduct, violence and aggression, withdrawal, anger and hostility as well as anxiety and depression (Cochran & Mears, 2013; Crank, 2010; Dye, 2010; Logan, 2015; Picken, 2012; Rocheleau, 2013; Woo et al., 2016). These adverse reactions to the correctional environment are not conducive to correctional adjustment and rehabilitation whilst incarcerated (Adams, 1992; Crank, 2010; Picken, 2012). Incarcerated offenders who adjust well to the prison environment can immerse themselves in the opportunities to learn a trade or skill that can assist them post-release, receive support from psychological and social work services and also feel relief through religious programmes provided by the correctional centre (Dissel, 2008). When incarcerated offenders are better adjusted to the correctional environment, they are also more likely to be optimistic regarding their transition back into community life post-release (Canda, Java, &
Loredo-Abuyo, 2015). Adjustment to the correctional environment is thus important for treatment and rehabilitative purposes (Adams, 1992), reducing emotional outbursts and withdrawals (Picken, 2012), reducing conflict, violent behaviour and infractions whilst incarcerated (Goncalves, 2014), for the shift back into the free world (Canda et al., 2015) and for further predicting recidivism post-release (Crank, 2010; Walters, 2003).
2.5 Theories relating to correctional adjustment
The Importation theory and the Deprivation theory embody two theoretical standpoints on trends of responses to incarceration. These theories aid in explicating how offenders adjust to incarceration and can be measured by the offenders’ internal reactions as well as the official actions taken by the correctional centre (Gover, MacKenzie, & Armstrong, 2000, Hampton, 2012; Logan, 2015). These two main theories can be applied to correctional adjustment and are defined and discussed below in sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2.
2.5.1 Importation Theory
In examining how offenders adjust to incarceration, the Importation theory can be applied to correctional adjustment, emphasising the significance of pre-correctional features, such as an offenders’ traits, lifestyles and past experiences (DeLisi, 2003; Hampton, 2012; Irwin, 1970;
Irwin & Cressey, 1962). Lahm (2008) stated that offender adjustment to the correctional environment is shaped by an offender’s pre-correctional experiences and socialisation. Logan
(2015) further highlighted that the importation model views offenders as importing their own subjective circumstances and upbringings into the correctional environment, which can have a discernible effect on how the offender perceives and experiences incarceration. Literature on the importation model directs that several individual differences explain the extent to which offenders are able to adequately adapt to the correctional environment, which includes their age (see Section 2.11.4), ethnicity (see Section 2.12.3), gender, socioeconomic status, social
support (see Section 2.11.3) and criminal history (see Section 2.11.5) (Logan, 2015; Thomas & Foster, 1973). In essence, the Importation theory advocates that the way offenders perceive and adjust to the correctional environment is largely due to the offenders own unique characteristics, past experiences and pre-correctional socialisation (Dhami et al., 2007; Rocheleau, 2013; Thomas & Foster, 1973).
2.5.2 Deprivation Theory
As highlighted in Section 2.1, the Pains of Imprisonment (Sykes, 1958) encompass numerous deprivations associated with the correctional environment that can impact how offenders adjust to incarceration. According to Sykes (1958), correctional centres are obstructive organisational structures serving to isolate offenders by depriving them of life’s most simple comforts and features, such as liberty, goods and services, heterosexual
relationships, autonomy and security. It has further been contended that the pains of imprisonment are not unintended by-products of the correctional environment but rather intentional components of what correctional centres are designed to do (Brookes, 2001;
Delaney; 2019; DeVeaux, 2013). As a result of being incarcerated, offenders cannot fulfil their basic needs, which inadvertently leads to tension and negative forms of adjusting (Jordaan, 2014). Ellis, Zamble and Porporino (1990) identified reduced independence, separation from loved ones, fears for personal safety, boredom, as well as displeasure with general correctional provision, amongst others, as the main causes of institutional pain and correctional
maladjustment. Comparable findings were conveyed by Wright (1989, 1993), who highlighted that the pains of imprisonment were most distinct amongst offenders concerned about (a) their personal safety; (b) their absence of privacy; and (c) their deficiency of social support and inability to engage with others. The deprivation theory thus holds that certain institutional characteristics and features can impact on correctional adjustment. Previous studies have indicated that some characteristics of the correctional environment that may exert particularly
notable effects on the correctional adjustment of incarcerated offenders include factors such as correctional overcrowding, the staff-to-offender ratio, racial integration as well as custody level (Logan, 2015).
2.6 Incarceration in South Africa
The conditions of incarceration in South Africa have changed significantly in recent decades. Pre-1994 democracy, human rights violations of offenders were prevalent. Most incarcerated offenders were held in overcrowded cells (an ongoing issue in public correctional centres today), and offenders were oftentimes assaulted by correctional officials. Political offenders were often brutally attacked, even murdered and subjected to gross and degrading human right defilements (Giffard, 1997). However, the democratic elections of 1994 resulted in significant changes to the correctional system including the abolition of racial segregation of offenders as well as the enforcing of correctional supervision (Monographs No 29, 1998).
The quantity of incarcerated offenders detained in South African correctional centres has since steadily increased (Ndebele, 2014). By the end of the 2015/2016 financial year, the DCS had a total offender population of 161 984, with official bed space for only 119 134 offenders (DCS Annual Report, 2016). While at the closing of the 2018 financial year, the DCS had a total offender population of 164 129 with approved space for only 118 723(DCS Annual Report, 2018). Unlike several decades ago, correctional centres are no longer considered institutions of punishment but rather organisations of rehabilitation (Mkhize, 2003). Whether South African correctional centres are indeed places of rehabilitation and reform is an entirely different discussion. Nevertheless, the DCS (2016, 2018) has clearly indicated their strategic objectives to ensure that the pattern of offending is targeted in correctional centres by
